Haslam and Holmgren had dinner together last night. I also read no FO moves before the sale is official in the October time frame.

Depending on how that conversation went there is nothing stopping Holmgren from stepping down - such as his future boss letting him know he won't be around past October.

Heckert surprises me, both because of the solid job he has always done with the draft and Haslam specifically noted the Eagles owner has someone who has been a mentor through this purchasing a team process.

JCoz wrote:I didnt say I believed it, I was offering a possible reason that Heckert may not be retained.

I know, I was just using that as an opportunity to make a dig at a friend.

If Banner decided to get rid of ANY GM at this point of the season, he's a freakin' retard. Who's making the roster decisions then? Putting that all on Shurmur? Bringing in some guy of his own that doesn't know these players?

I don't care if Heckert banged Banner's wife, no way is Heckert gone at this point, not unless it's an announcement that he'll finish up the 2012 season and then step down.

I love all the jabber about how exciting this all is, and how great it will be for Cleveland fans.

Is it good to have an owner that gives a shit, and a president who hires something other than Bob Lamonte clients? Sure.

Should we be excited to see the FO blown up again, immediately, and see half of the team traded off? To potentially get another retard running the drafts, after a few solid years?

No.

I'm beyond sauced over this; I get the whole pull-the-band-aid off quickly approach, and I understand that for a cool bill, you want your own guys pulling the strings. Roger all that.

Another FO swap out and philosophy change is a sack of shite, though. Don't make it sound like it's a time to be excited.

BEST CASE scenario is that they at least let Heckert and Shurmur play for their jobs this season without the cloud of doom hanging over them. I could give a shite less about the Walrus, unless he wants to return the sidelines. It's difficult to see what he does now that a real owner/president couldn't easily replicate.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

His 2nd year may change things, but I'm not exactly head over heels for Paddy and I dont know anyone who is. Do I want a reboot? No, but this Org was headed for the iceberg anyways, I think that was plainly clear, particularly to Holmgren, as evidenced on draft day when he grabbed the wheel from Heckert multiple times IMO.

Dont get me wrong I'm excited about this year because it should be a hell of a lot more watchable, if not more successfull, but I'm not going to shed a tear if Holmgren and Paddy get axed as a part of this deal. Heckert, I like him, but I dont wanna get all "riot to keep savages' job" with this.

No reason you have to blow up the building blocks, we still have some nice young talent that doesn't go anywhere with the changing of the guard, which is more than we can say about some of the other reboots IYAM.

The saving grace I see IF they were to clean house, whether it be today or end of season, is I believe these guys would look to bring in experienced replacements at each level so a "reboot" would not be as painful. I also believe these guys and the ones they bring in will be system equal to what is currently being run. So we will remain WCO and 4-3 defense. Because that is Banner's history I believe.

4 months ago, people were chomping at the bit to get rid of at least Shurmur. Now we are concerned? 4 months ago, Holmgren was a worthless pain in the ass who was milking Randy for retirement money. Now we are setting the franchise back if he is gone? Many people thought Heckert overpaid and panicked on multiple moves in the latest draft and reached for a QB after swinging and missing on the opportunity to get RG3.

If they stay, they stay. If they go, they go. Just like everything else though, the new guys just need to be right more often than the last guys were and if they are, nobody is going to miss the Holmgren era.

I seriously doubt Haslam can do anything official until the league formally approves the change in ownership, even if the vote will be just a rubber stamp. Holmgren could always step down on his own, however.

Haslam will soon own a team for which he paid $1,000,000,000, so I guess he kinda gets to do what he wants.

Big question, though - who is his football guy? 'Cause it aint Joe Banner.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

mattvan1 wrote:I seriously doubt Haslam can do anything official until the league formally approves the change in ownership, even if the vote will be just a rubber stamp. Holmgren could always step down on his own, however.

Haslam will soon own a team for which he paid $1,000,000,000, so I guess he kinda gets to do what he wants.

Big question, though - who is his football guy? 'Cause it aint Joe Banner.

mattvan1 wrote:I seriously doubt Haslam can do anything official until the league formally approves the change in ownership, even if the vote will be just a rubber stamp. Holmgren could always step down on his own, however.

Haslam will soon own a team for which he paid $1,000,000,000, so I guess he kinda gets to do what he wants.

Big question, though - who is his football guy? 'Cause it aint Joe Banner.

Why not? Or are you saying Banner is not a football guy?

From everything that I have read, he is not. Although he thinks he is, apparently. Hard to tell because Reid had final say in Philly, but I am not a fan of having your business and capologist have a hand in talent evaluation.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

mattvan1 wrote:I seriously doubt Haslam can do anything official until the league formally approves the change in ownership, even if the vote will be just a rubber stamp. Holmgren could always step down on his own, however.

Haslam will soon own a team for which he paid $1,000,000,000, so I guess he kinda gets to do what he wants.

Big question, though - who is his football guy? 'Cause it aint Joe Banner.

Why not? Or are you saying Banner is not a football guy?

From everything that I have read, he is not. Although he thinks he is, apparently. Hard to tell because Reid had final say in Philly, but I am not a fan of having your business and capologist have a hand in talent evaluation.

*Will not comment on personnel changes, which won't be available to happen until deal is approved, he believes in October. If not expecting to take control until October, then Shurmur and Heckert will have the season to prove themselves.

*Will not move operations to Cleveland, which he shouldn't have to do.

*Will likely sell stadium naming rights and change the uniforms, neither of which is a big deal to me. Would not be a fan of a logo on the helmet though.

*Certainly went out of his way to compliment Holmgren. Stated he feels team is going in right direction. Loves Richardson and Weeden.

Has em is going to get who he wants to run things. If Heckert, Holmgren, and Paddy aren't his guys then I see absolutely no advantage to waiting. Haslem should and will put his guys in place, even if it hurts a bit. The good thing is that the on field talent is the on field talent and I have confidence that no matter who is brought in, they won't run playas "just because".

motherscratcher wrote:The uniforms, meh, I'm not sure how different they could be. It's not like they'd go with orange elfs riding a brown lightning bolt down the shoulders or something.

No way Chic Fil A would be down with that.

But I agree that it would get the newly acquired fan base riled up. I'm not a fan of the idea, and really there is no reason for it unless the guy is hung up on his favorite color from when he was 5 years old.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

motherscratcher wrote:Hiko - if he's not smart enough to know what would happen amongst the fan base if he decided to logo up the helmet, then I'm much less optimistic about this transition.

This.

I dont know what it even means to change the Browns Uniform. I can say that when it comes to the Buckeyes its usually much ado about nothing. Happens quite a bit. If its along those lines of changing uni's then fine.

IT'S 2:36 PM ET AND I AM DYING TO HEAR WKNR'S LATEST BROWNS RUMOR BECAUSE THIS LAST ONE WAS SO SPOT ON!!!! I KEEP HITTING REFRESH ON THEIR SITE BECAUSE I KNOW HOLMGREN IS GONE!!! THEIR SOURCES ARE IMPECCABLE!!! TONY GROSSI!!! THAT LOUD GUY!!! THE BALD GUY!!!

WKNR sucks along with pretty much every other sportstalk or other afternoon talk in the Cleveland area. Morning drive-in news show on WTAM is about the only thing capable of helping someone pass the time. Radio hasn't broken a story in years.

Also Holmgren was 50/50 on the outs regardless this year. More than likely Banner just replaces him. If Weeden/Richardson/Mitchell/Gordon all pan out then Heckert's not going anywhere at the end of the year. If 2 or 3 of them are busts then who cares if he stays or goes.

Hikohadon wrote:I wish they would shut up about the retractable roof bullshit.

I mean I wish they'd done it, but the upfront costs were never gonns fly. Shortsighted, but true.

They put a roof on that stadium, I become a Packers fan.

I understand all the benefits, but a dome/roof is a deal-breaker for me.

Why? B/c "Football was meant to be played in 10 degree weather, with a foot of snow!?" One, it was? Two, sorry, but while it's kinda neat once in a while, it usually makes for lousy football and miserable conditions for fans.

On a personal level, I have pretty severe disabilities (esp. respiratory), so highly inclement weather is a no-go for me, game wise. A roof fixes that, for me.

Hikohadon wrote:I wish they would shut up about the retractable roof bullshit.

I mean I wish they'd done it, but the upfront costs were never gonns fly. Shortsighted, but true.

They put a roof on that stadium, I become a Packers fan.

I understand all the benefits, but a dome/roof is a deal-breaker for me.

Why? B/c "Football was meant to be played in 10 degree weather, with a foot of snow!?" One, it was? Two, sorry, but while it's kinda neat once in a while, it usually makes for lousy football and miserable conditions for fans.

On a personal level, I have pretty severe disabilities (esp. respiratory), so highly inclement weather is a no-go for me, game wise. A roof fixes that, for me.

That sucks for you, and I can understand your (or anyone else's) desire for room temperature football.

But football is - to me - an outdoor sport, and if it happens to be shitty weather that day, you play in shitty weather. If it's hot, you play in the heat. If it's raining, you play in the mud. If there's a foot of snow, you play in the snow.

I don't like Arena Football, and I don't like dome football. I have no interest in watching that brand of football, not on TV and not in person.

So, yes, put a roof on it and I'm done. Just a pet peeve that I will not even attempt to get over at my age. I'd rather they start playing two hand tap than put a roof on that thing.

For me a roof wouldn't have been for the 8-10 times a year that the Browns were playing. It would have been for the other 355 days a year that someone could use it for... Whatever the fuck people have conventions for.

But I would not have wanted them to close the roof for a game because of snow.

motherscratcher wrote:For me a roof wouldn't have been for the 8-10 times a year that the Browns were playing. It would have been for the other 355 days a year that someone could use it for... Whatever the fuck people have conventions for.

But I would not have wanted them to close the roof for a game because of snow.

Which they 100% would, especially if they were using it as a convention center. So the convention center would ruin November/December football.

Build a fucking convention center instead. Plenty of room. Probably wouldn't cost much more than capping the stadium.

motherscratcher wrote:For me a roof wouldn't have been for the 8-10 times a year that the Browns were playing. It would have been for the other 355 days a year that someone could use it for... Whatever the fuck people have conventions for.

But I would not have wanted them to close the roof for a game because of snow.

That too. And if effing Detroit can get a Super Bowl and, I think, a Final Four, I'd think we could have gotten some of that action w/ a roof too.

Oh well, moot point anyhow. And I realize and respect those who genuinely oppose it.

motherscratcher wrote:For me a roof wouldn't have been for the 8-10 times a year that the Browns were playing. It would have been for the other 355 days a year that someone could use it for... Whatever the fuck people have conventions for.

But I would not have wanted them to close the roof for a game because of snow.

That too. And if effing Detroit can get a Super Bowl and, I think, a Final Four, I'd think we could have gotten some of that action w/ a roof too.

Oh well, moot point anyhow. And I realize and respect those who genuinely oppose it.

Maybe they could get a SB with a cap, not sure Cleveland has the hotel infrastructure to handle it.

Like I said, I understand the possible advantages. It would just absolutely ruin Cleveland football for me.

motherscratcher wrote:For me a roof wouldn't have been for the 8-10 times a year that the Browns were playing. It would have been for the other 355 days a year that someone could use it for... Whatever the fuck people have conventions for.

To talk about teeth.

Pittsburgh doesn't have a convention center.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"